Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
Replies to Msg. #824470
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
53964 Re: Zimwit trial day 22
   ktc ...if Zimmerman was black, there wouldn't have been an arrest or... 		ribit   FFFT   12 Jul 2013
 12:48 AM
53959 Re: Zimwit trial day 22
   My understanding is that under Florida law, unless expressly prohibite... 		oldCADuser   FFFT   12 Jul 2013
 12:19 AM
53956 Re: Zimwit trial day 22
   Well, Zimwit had a choice that day, when he tucked the 9mm in... He an... 		weco   FFFT   11 Jul 2013
 11:57 PM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: Zimwit trial day 22

By: killthecat in FFFT
Thu, 11 Jul 13 11:00 PM
Msg. 53954 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 53953 by weco)
Jump to msg. #  

Weco:

Should have focused on the stalking and sought manslaughter originally, not 2nd degree. The judge allowing manslaughter after the evidence has been presented smacks of judicial bias.

==== Editorial

I'm no fan of George Zimmerman. I'm convinced that had it not been for his actions that amounting to stalking, Trayvon Martin would be alive, Zimmerman would not be on trial, and most Americans would still have not heard either of their names.

And I believe a not guilty verdict and allowing Zimmerman to walk out of the courtroom a free man sets a dangerous precedent, that you can start the trouble, and if you happen to start losing the confrontation you began, you can then use deadly force and claim self defense. That would not be good for any of us. Remember, he killed an unarmed teenager walking home from the store.

Having said that, if the judge allows the so-called lesser-included charges of manslaughter to be debated by the jury, it would be wrong and a miscarriage of justice.
I've seen that happen in some of the cases I've covered in Horry County, and I said it was wrong then as well. The prosecution wants those charges added, while the defense doesn't, for an extremely simple reason: It gives the prosecution multiple bites at the apple.

If it hasn't proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed second-degree murder - which is for the jury to decide - then it can do a wink, wink, nod, nod to the jury and say, "In opening arguments and throughout the trial we told you Zimmerman killed Martin with malice. But if you don't believe the evidence we presented proves that, well, you can always charge him with manslaughter, either of which would still allow you to put him in jail for a significant amount of time."

Judges usually allow lesser-included charges to come in at this stage of the trial. It is standard. But it is wrong. The defense set up its entire case to disprove second-degree murder. That meant legal tactics and theories were chosen specifically to beat that charge. If they faced manslaughter from the beginning, the defense would have been different; same with aggravated assault.

It's a bait-and-switch to force the defense to set up a defense against second-degree murder, then allow the prosecution to have its cake and eat it, too. What this also does, frequently, is encourage the prosecution to go after the highest charge, even if the evidence doesn't warrant it, which makes it more likely that even an innocent defendant will plead guilty to avoid any potential of capital punishment or life in prison.

Such charges should only be allowed in at this stage of the trial if both sides agree. In this case, it is obvious that it is the defense who is more confident that second-degree murder was not proved.
One of the supposed hallmarks of our justice system is that the prosecution gets to try its case, put its best foot forward, and leave it there. It is not supposed to get a second bite at the apple.

I believe Zimmerman should be punished for actions that led to an unnecessary tragedy, but not at the expense of the integrity of the system.